Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levelsCharacteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.817 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68) | 0.730 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.154 | -0.430, 0.174 | 0.406 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.014 | 0.135 | -0.279, 0.251 | 0.918 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.307 | 0.196 | -0.077, 0.690 | 0.118 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.270 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.382 | -0.829, 0.669 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.265 | 0.261 | -0.776, 0.246 | 0.311 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.01 | 0.379 | 0.272, 1.76 | 0.008 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.504 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.713 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.638 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.578 | 0.420 | -0.246, 1.40 | 0.171 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.30 | 0.611 | 0.097, 2.49 | 0.035 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.186 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.263 | -0.483, 0.547 | 0.903 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.003 | 0.181 | -0.358, 0.352 | 0.988 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.289 | 0.263 | -0.226, 0.805 | 0.273 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.291 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.412 | -0.463, 1.15 | 0.404 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.361 | 0.267 | -0.163, 0.885 | 0.178 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.433 | 0.388 | -0.328, 1.19 | 0.266 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.264 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.373 | -0.546, 0.914 | 0.622 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.309 | 0.219 | -0.121, 0.739 | 0.160 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.356 | 0.319 | -0.269, 0.980 | 0.266 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.215 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.305 | -0.989, 0.205 | 0.199 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.019 | 0.219 | -0.411, 0.449 | 0.933 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.811 | 0.318 | 0.187, 1.43 | 0.012 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.877 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.240 | -3.72, 1.14 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.45 | 0.698 | -2.82, -0.083 | 0.039 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.081 | 1.015 | -1.91, 2.07 | 0.937 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.409 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.579 | -1.14, 1.13 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.312 | 0.358 | -0.389, 1.01 | 0.384 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.222 | 0.520 | -0.797, 1.24 | 0.670 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.515 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.729 | -0.588, 2.27 | 0.250 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.260 | 0.448 | -0.619, 1.14 | 0.563 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.314 | 0.652 | -0.963, 1.59 | 0.630 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.643 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.910 | -0.415, 3.15 | 0.134 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.13 | 0.511 | 0.124, 2.13 | 0.029 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.049 | 0.744 | -1.51, 1.41 | 0.947 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.334 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.473 | -0.575, 1.28 | 0.457 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.311 | 0.273 | -0.225, 0.846 | 0.257 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.037 | 0.397 | -0.741, 0.816 | 0.925 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.543 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.768 | -1.50, 1.50 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.826 | 0.455 | -0.065, 1.72 | 0.071 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.235 | 0.661 | -1.06, 1.53 | 0.722 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.629 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.890 | -1.42, 2.06 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.04 | 0.501 | 0.056, 2.02 | 0.040 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.137 | 0.728 | -1.56, 1.29 | 0.851 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.391 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.552 | -0.323, 1.84 | 0.170 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.804 | 0.357 | 0.105, 1.50 | 0.025 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.470 | 0.518 | -0.546, 1.49 | 0.366 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.251 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.355 | 0.048, 1.44 | 0.037 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.129 | 0.222 | -0.563, 0.306 | 0.562 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.468 | 0.322 | -0.163, 1.10 | 0.148 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.285 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.404 | -0.399, 1.18 | 0.332 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.360 | 0.245 | -0.121, 0.841 | 0.144 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.325 | 0.357 | -0.374, 1.02 | 0.363 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.295 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.417 | -0.121, 1.51 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.268 | 0.236 | -0.194, 0.730 | 0.257 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.293 | 0.343 | -0.379, 0.965 | 0.393 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.539 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.763 | -0.407, 2.58 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.640 | 0.414 | -0.173, 1.45 | 0.124 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.605 | 0.603 | -0.576, 1.79 | 0.317 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.819 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.158 | -3.49, 1.05 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.840 | 0.657 | -2.13, 0.448 | 0.203 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.65 | 0.955 | -3.52, 0.227 | 0.087 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.447 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.632 | -0.231, 2.25 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.362 | 0.345 | -0.313, 1.04 | 0.295 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.541 | 0.501 | -0.442, 1.52 | 0.282 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.364 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.515 | -0.001, 2.02 | 0.051 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.492 | 0.308 | -0.112, 1.10 | 0.112 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.355 | 0.448 | -0.523, 1.23 | 0.429 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.772 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.092 | -0.125, 4.16 | 0.066 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.856 | 0.594 | -0.309, 2.02 | 0.151 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.892 | 0.864 | -0.802, 2.59 | 0.303 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.139 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.197 | -0.457, 0.313 | 0.714 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.191 | 0.159 | -0.502, 0.120 | 0.231 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.208 | 0.230 | -0.243, 0.659 | 0.367 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.312 | 13.7, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.441 | -0.144, 1.58 | 0.103 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.595 | 0.326 | -0.044, 1.23 | 0.069 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.628 | 0.473 | -1.55, 0.298 | 0.185 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.378 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.534 | -0.582, 1.51 | 0.385 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.566 | 0.351 | -0.122, 1.25 | 0.108 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.323 | 0.510 | -0.676, 1.32 | 0.527 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.619 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.875 | -0.531, 2.90 | 0.177 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 0.590 | 0.008, 2.32 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.310 | 0.857 | -1.99, 1.37 | 0.718 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.404 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.572 | -0.593, 1.65 | 0.357 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.707 | 0.335 | 0.050, 1.36 | 0.036 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.094 | 0.487 | -0.860, 1.05 | 0.846 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.225 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.318 | -0.631, 0.615 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.178 | 0.248 | -0.308, 0.664 | 0.474 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.589 | 0.360 | -0.116, 1.29 | 0.103 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.275 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.389 | -0.851, 0.675 | 0.821 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.488 | 0.283 | -1.04, 0.066 | 0.086 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.573 | 0.410 | -1.38, 0.231 | 0.164 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.459 | -0.676, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.419 | 0.269 | -0.947, 0.108 | 0.121 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.734 | 0.391 | -1.50, 0.033 | 0.062 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.471 | -1.00, 0.842 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.590 | 0.276 | -1.13, -0.048 | 0.034 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.230 | 0.401 | -1.02, 0.557 | 0.567 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.334 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.472 | -0.518, 1.33 | 0.388 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.397 | 0.273 | -0.931, 0.138 | 0.148 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.628 | 0.397 | -1.41, 0.149 | 0.115 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.935 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.322 | -2.04, 3.14 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.40 | 0.696 | -2.77, -0.038 | 0.045 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.52 | 1.012 | -3.51, 0.463 | 0.135 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(422) = 29.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(422) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25], t(422) = -0.10, p = 0.918; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.69], t(422) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(422) = 66.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(422) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.25], t(422) = -1.02, p = 0.310; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [0.27, 1.76], t(422) = 2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.09, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(422) = 58.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(422) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.40], t(422) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [0.10, 2.49], t(422) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.02, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(422) = 62.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55], t(422) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.62e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.35], t(422) = -0.01, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -1.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.80], t(422) = 1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(422) = 58.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(422) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.89], t(422) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.19], t(422) = 1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(422) = 49.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(422) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.74], t(422) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.98], t(422) = 1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(422) = 46.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.21], t(422) = -1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.45], t(422) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 7.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.19, 1.43], t(422) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.08, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(422) = 35.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(422) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-2.82, -0.08], t(422) = -2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.29, -8.52e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.07], t(422) = 0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = 8.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(422) = 53.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(422) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.01], t(422) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.24], t(422) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(422) = 47.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(422) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.14], t(422) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.59], t(422) = 0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.93], t(422) = 30.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.15], t(422) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [0.12, 2.13], t(422) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.41], t(422) = -0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = -6.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(422) = 31.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(422) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.85], t(422) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.82], t(422) = 0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(422) = 27.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.64e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(422) = -3.44e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.08e-15, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.72], t(422) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.53], t(422) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(422) = 34.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(422) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.06, 2.02], t(422) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [8.14e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.29], t(422) = -0.19, p = 0.851; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(422) = 41.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(422) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [0.11, 1.50], t(422) = 2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.02, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.49], t(422) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(422) = 52.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(422) = 2.09, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.31], t(422) = -0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.10], t(422) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(422) = 58.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(422) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.84], t(422) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.02], t(422) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(422) = 42.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(422) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.73], t(422) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.96], t(422) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(422) = 54.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(422) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.45], t(422) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.79], t(422) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(422) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(422) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.45], t(422) = -1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.52, 0.23], t(422) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(422) = 30.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(422) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.04], t(422) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.52], t(422) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.61, 16.04], t(422) = 42.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-9.57e-04, 2.02], t(422) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.33e-04, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.10], t(422) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.23], t(422) = 0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.65, 30.68], t(422) = 37.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.16], t(422) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.02], t(422) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.59], t(422) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(422) = 92.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.31], t(422) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.12], t(422) = -1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.66], t(422) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(422) = 46.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(422) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.23], t(422) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.30], t(422) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(422) = 34.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(422) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.25], t(422) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.32], t(422) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(422) = 44.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(422) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [8.19e-03, 2.32], t(422) = 1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [1.18e-03, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.37], t(422) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(422) = 46.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(422) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.05, 1.36], t(422) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.01, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.05], t(422) = 0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(422) = 63.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.62], t(422) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.18e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66], t(422) = 0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.29], t(422) = 1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(422) = 42.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(422) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.07], t(422) = -1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.23], t(422) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(422) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(422) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.11], t(422) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.03], t(422) = -1.88, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.41, 9.04e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(422) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(422) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.05], t(422) = -2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.30, -0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.56], t(422) = -0.57, p = 0.567; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(422) = 26.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(422) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.14], t(422) = -1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.15], t(422) = -1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(422) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(422) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-2.77, -0.04], t(422) = -2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -3.59e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-3.51, 0.46], t(422) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,362.906 | 1,375.083 | -678.453 | 1,356.906 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,364.612 | 1,388.967 | -676.306 | 1,352.612 | 4.294 | 3 | 0.231 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,080.873 | 2,093.051 | -1,037.437 | 2,074.873 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,077.857 | 2,102.212 | -1,032.928 | 2,065.857 | 9.017 | 3 | 0.029 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,581.886 | 2,594.064 | -1,287.943 | 2,575.886 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,567.648 | 2,592.003 | -1,277.824 | 2,555.648 | 20.238 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,756.076 | 1,768.254 | -875.038 | 1,750.076 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,759.493 | 1,783.848 | -873.746 | 1,747.493 | 2.584 | 3 | 0.460 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,132.507 | 2,144.685 | -1,063.254 | 2,126.507 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,127.299 | 2,151.654 | -1,057.649 | 2,115.299 | 11.208 | 3 | 0.011 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,016.141 | 2,028.318 | -1,005.070 | 2,010.141 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,011.349 | 2,035.703 | -999.674 | 1,999.349 | 10.792 | 3 | 0.013 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,905.819 | 1,917.996 | -949.909 | 1,899.819 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,898.968 | 1,923.323 | -943.484 | 1,886.968 | 12.851 | 3 | 0.005 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,029.256 | 3,041.433 | -1,511.628 | 3,023.256 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,026.493 | 3,050.848 | -1,507.246 | 3,014.493 | 8.763 | 3 | 0.033 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,400.192 | 2,412.369 | -1,197.096 | 2,394.192 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,403.399 | 2,427.754 | -1,195.699 | 2,391.399 | 2.793 | 3 | 0.425 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,596.832 | 2,609.009 | -1,295.416 | 2,590.832 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,599.132 | 2,623.487 | -1,293.566 | 2,587.132 | 3.699 | 3 | 0.296 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,766.134 | 2,778.311 | -1,380.067 | 2,760.134 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,761.202 | 2,785.557 | -1,374.601 | 2,749.202 | 10.932 | 3 | 0.012 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,206.738 | 2,218.916 | -1,100.369 | 2,200.738 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,209.379 | 2,233.734 | -1,098.689 | 2,197.379 | 3.360 | 3 | 0.339 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,633.990 | 2,646.168 | -1,313.995 | 2,627.990 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,631.982 | 2,656.337 | -1,309.991 | 2,619.982 | 8.008 | 3 | 0.046 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,743.593 | 2,755.770 | -1,368.797 | 2,737.593 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,742.447 | 2,766.801 | -1,365.223 | 2,730.447 | 7.146 | 3 | 0.067 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,389.815 | 2,401.992 | -1,191.907 | 2,383.815 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,376.745 | 2,401.100 | -1,182.373 | 2,364.745 | 19.070 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,992.405 | 2,004.583 | -993.203 | 1,986.405 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,988.545 | 2,012.900 | -988.273 | 1,976.545 | 9.860 | 3 | 0.020 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,094.511 | 2,106.688 | -1,044.255 | 2,088.511 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,089.793 | 2,114.147 | -1,038.896 | 2,077.793 | 10.718 | 3 | 0.013 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,099.016 | 2,111.193 | -1,046.508 | 2,093.016 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,094.758 | 2,119.113 | -1,041.379 | 2,082.758 | 10.257 | 3 | 0.017 |
els | null | 3 | 2,606.768 | 2,618.945 | -1,300.384 | 2,600.768 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,599.449 | 2,623.804 | -1,293.724 | 2,587.449 | 13.319 | 3 | 0.004 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,981.489 | 2,993.667 | -1,487.745 | 2,975.489 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,970.771 | 2,995.125 | -1,479.385 | 2,958.771 | 16.719 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,444.922 | 2,457.100 | -1,219.461 | 2,438.922 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,439.956 | 2,464.311 | -1,213.978 | 2,427.956 | 10.966 | 3 | 0.012 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,301.478 | 2,313.655 | -1,147.739 | 2,295.478 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,293.070 | 2,317.425 | -1,140.535 | 2,281.070 | 14.407 | 3 | 0.002 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,915.529 | 2,927.707 | -1,454.765 | 2,909.529 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,907.079 | 2,931.434 | -1,447.540 | 2,895.079 | 14.450 | 3 | 0.002 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,549.800 | 1,561.977 | -771.900 | 1,543.800 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,554.332 | 1,578.687 | -771.166 | 1,542.332 | 1.468 | 3 | 0.690 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,221.034 | 2,233.212 | -1,107.517 | 2,215.034 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,222.311 | 2,246.666 | -1,105.156 | 2,210.311 | 4.723 | 3 | 0.193 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,356.648 | 2,368.825 | -1,175.324 | 2,350.648 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,353.145 | 2,377.500 | -1,170.572 | 2,341.145 | 9.503 | 3 | 0.023 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,784.831 | 2,797.008 | -1,389.415 | 2,778.831 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,783.480 | 2,807.834 | -1,385.740 | 2,771.480 | 7.351 | 3 | 0.062 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,381.112 | 2,393.290 | -1,187.556 | 2,375.112 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,376.696 | 2,401.051 | -1,182.348 | 2,364.696 | 10.416 | 3 | 0.015 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,960.874 | 1,973.051 | -977.437 | 1,954.874 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,957.309 | 1,981.663 | -972.654 | 1,945.309 | 9.565 | 3 | 0.023 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,120.904 | 2,133.081 | -1,057.452 | 2,114.904 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,110.952 | 2,135.306 | -1,049.476 | 2,098.952 | 15.952 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,201.175 | 2,213.352 | -1,097.587 | 2,195.175 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,188.704 | 2,213.059 | -1,088.352 | 2,176.704 | 18.471 | 3 | 0.000 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,216.687 | 2,228.865 | -1,105.344 | 2,210.687 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,210.263 | 2,234.618 | -1,099.131 | 2,198.263 | 12.425 | 3 | 0.006 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,217.348 | 2,229.525 | -1,105.674 | 2,211.348 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,208.576 | 2,232.930 | -1,098.288 | 2,196.576 | 14.772 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,073.213 | 3,085.390 | -1,533.606 | 3,067.213 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,059.871 | 3,084.226 | -1,523.936 | 3,047.871 | 19.341 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.22 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.22 | 0.406 | 0.133 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 94 | 3.19 ± 1.20 | 0.014 | 84 | 3.36 ± 1.19 | -0.303 | 0.320 | -0.185 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.02 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.02 | 0.834 | 0.044 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 94 | 17.62 ± 2.87 | 0.145 | 84 | 18.55 ± 2.83 | -0.410 | 0.029 | -0.511 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.64 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.64 | 0.638 | -0.115 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 94 | 30.27 ± 5.25 | -0.197 | 84 | 31.90 ± 5.14 | -0.639 | 0.037 | -0.556 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.08 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.08 | 0.903 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 94 | 11.62 ± 1.97 | 0.002 | 84 | 11.94 ± 1.94 | -0.225 | 0.275 | -0.253 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.26 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.26 | 0.404 | -0.184 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 94 | 17.55 ± 3.07 | -0.193 | 84 | 18.32 ± 3.02 | -0.425 | 0.090 | -0.415 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.95 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.95 | 0.622 | -0.120 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 94 | 13.45 ± 2.74 | -0.202 | 84 | 13.99 ± 2.68 | -0.435 | 0.186 | -0.353 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.41 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.41 | 0.199 | 0.254 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 94 | 9.97 ± 2.30 | -0.012 | 84 | 10.39 ± 2.27 | -0.537 | 0.224 | -0.271 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.80 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.80 | 0.300 | 0.265 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 94 | 30.05 ± 9.09 | 0.298 | 84 | 28.84 ± 8.86 | 0.282 | 0.371 | 0.248 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.58 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.58 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 94 | 22.38 ± 4.29 | -0.125 | 84 | 22.59 ± 4.20 | -0.214 | 0.738 | -0.085 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.76 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.76 | 0.250 | -0.268 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 94 | 24.76 ± 5.40 | -0.083 | 84 | 25.92 ± 5.28 | -0.183 | 0.151 | -0.369 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.19 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.19 | 0.134 | -0.384 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 94 | 20.79 ± 6.67 | -0.316 | 84 | 22.11 ± 6.50 | -0.303 | 0.183 | -0.370 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.74 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.74 | 0.457 | -0.185 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 94 | 10.96 ± 3.47 | -0.163 | 84 | 11.35 ± 3.39 | -0.183 | 0.450 | -0.205 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.07 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 94 | 15.95 ± 5.66 | -0.260 | 84 | 16.19 ± 5.53 | -0.335 | 0.779 | -0.074 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.03 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.03 | 0.719 | -0.092 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 94 | 22.59 ± 6.52 | -0.298 | 84 | 22.77 ± 6.36 | -0.258 | 0.850 | -0.053 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.37 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.37 | 0.170 | -0.304 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 94 | 16.98 ± 4.12 | -0.322 | 84 | 18.21 ± 4.04 | -0.510 | 0.045 | -0.493 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.81 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.81 | 0.037 | -0.480 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 94 | 13.04 ± 2.64 | 0.083 | 84 | 14.25 ± 2.58 | -0.219 | 0.002 | -0.783 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.19 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.19 | 0.332 | -0.229 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 94 | 17.12 ± 2.98 | -0.210 | 84 | 17.84 ± 2.92 | -0.400 | 0.106 | -0.419 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.30 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.30 | 0.096 | -0.424 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 94 | 12.68 ± 3.06 | -0.163 | 84 | 13.67 ± 2.98 | -0.342 | 0.030 | -0.603 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.03 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.03 | 0.155 | -0.378 | ||
els | 2nd | 94 | 29.81 ± 5.57 | -0.222 | 84 | 31.50 ± 5.42 | -0.432 | 0.041 | -0.587 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.16 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.16 | 0.295 | 0.266 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 94 | 27.04 ± 8.50 | 0.183 | 84 | 24.18 ± 8.29 | 0.543 | 0.024 | 0.625 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 5.00 | 125 | 14.85 ± 5.00 | 0.112 | -0.420 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 94 | 14.20 ± 4.62 | -0.151 | 84 | 15.75 ± 4.50 | -0.377 | 0.024 | -0.646 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.07 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.07 | 0.051 | -0.469 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 94 | 15.82 ± 3.80 | -0.229 | 84 | 17.18 ± 3.72 | -0.394 | 0.016 | -0.634 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.64 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.64 | 0.066 | -0.488 | ||
shs | 2nd | 94 | 30.02 ± 7.98 | -0.207 | 84 | 32.93 ± 7.76 | -0.423 | 0.014 | -0.704 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.55 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.55 | 0.714 | 0.064 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 94 | 12.61 ± 1.51 | 0.169 | 84 | 12.75 ± 1.50 | -0.015 | 0.548 | -0.121 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.48 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.48 | 0.103 | -0.314 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 94 | 14.95 ± 3.35 | -0.259 | 84 | 15.05 ± 3.31 | 0.015 | 0.854 | -0.040 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.22 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.22 | 0.385 | -0.189 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 94 | 13.72 ± 3.99 | -0.230 | 84 | 14.51 ± 3.92 | -0.362 | 0.185 | -0.320 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.92 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.92 | 0.177 | -0.286 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 94 | 28.68 ± 6.56 | -0.281 | 84 | 29.55 ± 6.45 | -0.206 | 0.371 | -0.211 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.52 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.52 | 0.357 | -0.226 | ||
empower | 2nd | 94 | 19.55 ± 4.21 | -0.303 | 84 | 20.18 ± 4.11 | -0.343 | 0.320 | -0.267 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.51 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.51 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 94 | 14.54 ± 2.43 | -0.101 | 84 | 15.12 ± 2.41 | -0.437 | 0.111 | -0.331 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.08 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.08 | 0.821 | 0.044 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 94 | 11.30 ± 2.95 | 0.245 | 84 | 10.64 ± 2.91 | 0.533 | 0.133 | 0.332 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.119 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 94 | 9.98 ± 3.38 | 0.224 | 84 | 9.47 ± 3.30 | 0.615 | 0.310 | 0.272 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.042 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 94 | 9.59 ± 3.47 | 0.306 | 84 | 9.28 ± 3.39 | 0.426 | 0.547 | 0.161 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.73 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.73 | 0.388 | -0.215 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 94 | 8.32 ± 3.47 | 0.209 | 84 | 8.09 ± 3.39 | 0.539 | 0.669 | 0.116 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.45 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.45 | 0.677 | -0.114 | ||
sss | 2nd | 94 | 27.89 ± 9.62 | 0.290 | 84 | 26.92 ± 9.35 | 0.604 | 0.496 | 0.200 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(381.34) = -0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(417.28) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.53)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(322.95) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(390.44) = 2.19, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.77)
ras_confidence
1st
t(301.55) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)
2st
t(368.31) = 2.09, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.10 to 3.16)
ras_willingness
1st
t(325.09) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)
2st
t(392.14) = 1.09, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.90)
ras_goal
1st
t(314.85) = 0.83, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)
2st
t(383.23) = 1.70, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.68)
ras_reliance
1st
t(301.30) = 0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(367.99) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.34)
ras_domination
1st
t(333.14) = -1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)
2st
t(397.87) = 1.22, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.09)
symptom
1st
t(296.25) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)
2st
t(361.09) = -0.90, p = 0.371, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.85 to 1.44)
slof_work
1st
t(307.63) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)
2st
t(375.67) = 0.34, p = 0.738, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.47)
slof_relationship
1st
t(307.10) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(375.05) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.73)
satisfaction
1st
t(296.07) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)
2st
t(360.82) = 1.33, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.26)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(299.17) = 0.74, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)
2st
t(365.16) = 0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.40)
mhc_social
1st
t(302.14) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(369.06) = 0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.89)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(296.21) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(361.02) = 0.19, p = 0.850, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.08)
resilisnce
1st
t(314.03) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)
2st
t(382.44) = 2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.43)
social_provision
1st
t(309.05) = 2.09, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(377.24) = 3.10, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.44 to 1.98)
els_value_living
1st
t(305.48) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)
2st
t(373.16) = 1.62, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.59)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(296.71) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)
2st
t(361.74) = 2.18, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.88)
els
1st
t(292.47) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)
2st
t(355.42) = 2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.07 to 3.31)
social_connect
1st
t(297.05) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)
2st
t(362.23) = -2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-5.34 to -0.39)
shs_agency
1st
t(292.82) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)
2st
t(355.97) = 2.26, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.89)
shs_pathway
1st
t(303.36) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)
2st
t(370.60) = 2.42, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.47)
shs
1st
t(292.61) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.17)
2st
t(355.63) = 2.46, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.59 to 5.23)
esteem
1st
t(358.83) = -0.37, p = 0.714, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.31)
2st
t(410.68) = 0.60, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.58)
mlq_search
1st
t(338.44) = 1.63, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.59)
2st
t(401.14) = 0.18, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.07)
mlq_presence
1st
t(316.92) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)
2st
t(385.20) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.95)
mlq
1st
t(321.10) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.91)
2st
t(388.91) = 0.89, p = 0.371, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.79)
empower
1st
t(300.73) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)
2st
t(367.24) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.85)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(350.60) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.62)
2st
t(407.33) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.30)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(334.98) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)
2st
t(399.05) = -1.50, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.20)
sss_affective
1st
t(300.91) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(367.47) = -1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.48)
sss_behavior
1st
t(300.98) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(367.56) = -0.60, p = 0.547, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.70)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(299.16) = 0.86, p = 0.388, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(365.15) = -0.43, p = 0.669, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.79)
sss
1st
t(289.47) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)
2st
t(350.60) = -0.68, p = 0.496, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.77 to 1.83)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(217.65) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.01 to 0.57)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(199.48) = 2.73, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.29)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(193.05) = 4.22, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (1.00 to 2.75)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(200.12) = 1.50, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.66)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(197.06) = 2.82, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.35)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(192.98) = 2.87, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.12)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(202.53) = 3.59, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.28)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(191.44) = -1.86, p = 0.130, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.82 to 0.08)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(194.89) = 1.41, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.28)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(194.73) = 1.21, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.51)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(191.38) = 1.99, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(192.33) = 1.21, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.92)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(193.23) = 2.21, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.01)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(191.43) = 1.70, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.94)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(196.81) = 3.39, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.53 to 2.02)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(195.31) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.80)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(194.24) = 2.65, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.20)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(191.58) = 2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.05)
els
1st vs 2st
t(190.28) = 2.84, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.11)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(191.68) = -3.58, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-3.85 to -1.12)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(190.39) = 2.48, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.62)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(193.60) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.49)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(190.33) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.99)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(210.34) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.35)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(204.12) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.64)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(197.68) = 2.40, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.62)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(198.93) = 1.37, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.08)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(192.80) = 2.26, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.50)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(207.80) = 2.94, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.28)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(203.08) = -3.57, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.65 to -0.47)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(192.86) = -4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.71 to -0.59)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(192.88) = -2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.24)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(192.33) = -3.56, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.59 to -0.46)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(189.36) = -3.97, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.37 to -1.47)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(206.43) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.25)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(193.11) = -1.02, p = 0.622, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.25)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(188.43) = 1.37, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.41)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(193.58) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.35)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(191.35) = 1.35, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.89)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(188.38) = 1.41, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.74)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(195.34) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.45)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(187.26) = -2.08, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.83 to -0.07)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(189.77) = 0.87, p = 0.768, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.02)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(189.65) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.14)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(187.22) = 2.20, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(187.91) = 1.14, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.85)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(188.56) = 1.82, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.72)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(187.25) = 2.07, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.03)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(191.17) = 2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.51)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(190.08) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.31)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(189.30) = 1.47, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.84)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(187.36) = 1.14, p = 0.515, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.73)
els
1st vs 2st
t(186.42) = 1.54, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.46)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(187.44) = -1.28, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.46)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(186.50) = 1.05, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.04)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(188.83) = 1.60, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.10)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(186.45) = 1.44, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.03)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(201.05) = -1.20, p = 0.463, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.12)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(196.50) = 1.82, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.24)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(191.80) = 1.61, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.26)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(192.71) = 1.97, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.33)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(188.25) = 2.11, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.37)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(199.19) = 0.72, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.67)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(195.74) = -1.73, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.07)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(188.29) = -1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.11)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(188.31) = -2.13, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.13 to -0.04)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(187.91) = -1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.14)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(185.75) = -2.01, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.77 to -0.03)
Plot
